Groundspeak Portal

Edit: I know what I wrote here may seem a little daunting at first but don't let that scare you. All the old ways of waymarking are still possible!

We're close to releasing an update to the site that incorporates some pretty big changes, so I wanted to give you a preview and solicit your opinion on something.

The Problem

As with most ideas this one begins with a problem. The problem we face is that, while the categories grow in number every week,  quite often there is no category in which to place certain waymarks that folks come across. It concerns us that we may be turning away waymarks that people collect because there is no place on the site where they can be submitted.

Another problem is that a new or infrequent waymarker can't possibly have a good working knowledge of the more than 900 categories available. The result is either that they will forego marking the location entirely, or collect the information thinking it will fit into a category only to find later that no such category exists. Either way we lose out on some excellent data for our site.

Still another issue is with the category variables. If 900 categories are difficult to keep track of, memorizing the required variables is virtually unthinkable. All of these problems result in waymarkers simply ignoring good waymarks when they aren't certain to have a home on waymarking.com.

The solution is to allow the submission of waymarks without a parent category, and to make all category variables optional. These will be what we call "Orphan Waymarks".

Orphan Waymarks

Here's the scenario: You settle down at your computer to enter some waymarks after a day out. So far nothing has changed - you submit a dozen or so waymarks into various categories just as you always have. But now you come to a waymark you could have sworn belonged in a category that already exists on the site. For the life of you you can't figure out where it goes. Instead of letting the images languish in your "potential waymarks" folder, you go ahead and submit the waymark as an Orphan. It will now live in a special orphan waymarks queue that anyone can visit and peruse. It won't, however, show up in regular searches on the site.

Meanwhile...

On the other side of the world, another Premium waymarker visits the site and decides to see if any new orphans have been submitted. This waymarker has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the directory and loves to find new homes for orphan waymarks. He loads up the site and visits the queue. What do you know! A new orphan was submitted and he just happens to know a category that would be perfect for it. He double checks the waymark details and clicks the "categorize this waymark" link. He is presented with an edit page for the waymark including a category dropdown, and only the title and coordinates are grayed out. He selects the correct category and then adds any category specific tweaks that would make it more suited to the category. He also fills in any variables he can glean from the internet or from personal experience. Finally, he submits the waymark on your behalf and waits for the group to review it.

If the group accepts the waymark, it gains full waymark status and now shows up in regular searches on the site. You get full credit for entering the waymark just as if you had known the category from the start.

If the group denies the waymark, any changes he made will be lost and the waymark will go back to the orphan queue to await categorization on another day.

Optional Variables

But why do variables have to be optional? Well, as you can see in the scenario above, you didn't know which category in which to place your waymark. As a consequence you could not know what the variables would be. Furthermore, your helper across the world wasn't physically at the location and is not in a position to confidently fill out all the variables when he helps categorize your waymark. In order for this to work it is necessary for all variables to be optional.

How about when you do know what category to use, but find that you neglected to gather information on some required variable? I am certain many of you have faced this situation. You may have 99% of the information you need to make a great waymark but that one variable prevents you from submitting it. I am sure you wouldn't cheat ( ), but do you think a less truthful waymarker might be tempted to make something up instead? Now we have bad data about the waymark that will never, ever be fixed. In this case my opinion is that no data is better than false data.

At this point you may still be a little uneasy about optional variables, but I'll try to allay your concerns by explaining how we plan to recoup the upfront loss of some variables. On each waymark page where you find the variables now, there will be a new link to "suggest variable change". Each missing variable can be filled in by another waymarker, or even changed if they are found to be in error. In addition, every time someone logs a visit to the waymark, any missing variables will be presented for that person to answer. Instead of immediately accepting the variable answers like a wiki, most variable suggestions will be sent to the category group for review (the exception is if the owner or group officer makes the change). In this way we make it possible for accurate variables to be collected from people who are confident about their answers. What we lose upfront will be more than made up for over time. Especially when variable answers will award...

Points

So why would anyone want to find a home for an orphan waymark, or fill in missing variable answers? Perhaps just because they enjoy organizing things (I'm looking at you, BQ). Or maybe because they like helping out fellow waymarkers by making the site more useful and fun. I'm sure for many of you that's reason enough, but to help incentivize these activities the site will award points for common tasks, and display a total points score on your profile (opt out available - just to get that out of the way).

In short, everything from submitting a waymark to voting on peer review may award some amount of points. We are trying to weight the number of points relative to the value of the activity, and to limit the incentive for users to choose one decision over another when two equal choices are presented. For instance:

Waymark Review = 5 pts

Call Vote for Waymark = 3 pts
                +      Vote = 2 pts
                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                = 5 pts

So you see, whether you review the waymark yourself or call a vote, either way you gain 5 points. Initially we left out the award of 3 points for calling the vote. Then it occurred to us that it might dissuade some people from ever calling a vote because it wouldn't award as many points. This is the sort of thing I'd like you all to think about.

Here is our draft menu of points:

5 = Post and submit waymark
15 = Have your waymark approved
10 = Visit waymark (owner's visit = 1)
10 = First to find (requires new feature)
0 = Comment on waymark
5 = Review waymark
3 = Call vote for waymark
2 = Vote
4 = Peer review vote + comment
5 = Categorize orphan

Variable answer
           1 = Pre-review (by owner from add waymark page)
           1 = Post-review (by anyone)

1 = Review variable answer (each)
0 = Create a group
5 = Invite a group officer
5 = Become a group officer

Category (100 pts total)
15 = Create a category
15 = Add category variables (at least one, points refunded if removed)
15 = Officer category review (only if successful)
15 = Send category to Peer Review
25 = Category approved
15 = Category activated

0 = Buy Premium Membership
1000 = Grid bingo

Milestones
       Waymark - 5 x Milestone = points awarded
       Visits - 2 x Milestone = points awarded

This is just a rough draft that Sean and I came up with, but we think it's pretty close. We're open to suggestions if you think something is worth too much, or too little. Once we have the points locked in we're going to retroactively award points for everything you've accomplished to date. The nice thing about these points is they can be adjusted in the future without affecting the points you earned in the past. For instance, we might have a "double points for visits" holiday weekend, where any visits you log over the weekend award double. I think this could make the site really fun.

I hope I did a good job of explaining all this. If you're confused about anything please let me know and I'll try to clarify. Sean and I have put a lot of thought into this change in the last year or so, and we have a sincere belief that it will add a lot of value to the game. I hope you agree!

As you know I am not in favor of making all variables optional.  They may be optional for filling out the waymark as an orphan however  for approval as "real" waymarks they may not be.  For example take the Old Church category one of its variables is when the building was built along with source of the information, this is a fundamental requirement of the category.  Without a year of construction it is hard to say that the church is 100 years old. Using the philosophy that the variables will get populated later just doesn't quite do it... lets say the waymark is accepted because someone wants it to be called an old church and someone later fills in the variable and the church is 50 years old... do I now go and  deny the waymark that should have been denied to begin with? or do I just let it fly and accept any chuch that someone wants to call old?  This type of scenario is also present in many other categories where the answers in the variables "qualify" the waymark to be in the category.

As far as points for variable completion I have no problem with this as long as it is something that materially improves the waymark, completing the zip code in an address I would not consider materially improving the waymark,  adding a complete missing address would.

I'm not sure the example you gave (Old Church) really applies. I'm not at all saying you shouldn't have requirements for the waymarks that a category accepts. A construction date older than 100 years is a fundamental attribute of waymarks in that category and any younger churches should be denied. How does requiring someone enter a date and web address in a variable field differ from requiring it in the body of the waymark?

The variables were never about proving an aspect of the waymark, they are a way of organizing the information so that one day it can be indexed and searchable as web results or in some sort of pocket query.

You can argue that it will now be easier for someone to mistakenly enter a waymark in the category because they failed to properly read the requirements beforehand, owing to the fact that no longer will they be halted because a field was left empty. I will concede this one drawback. But the bottom line is if the waymark doesn't meet the basic requirements it doesn't belong in the category, variable field or not.

<opinionate> skrev i en meddelelse news:23098@portal.groundspeak.com...

Points etc.

Bruce, even though the year requirement was required for you, there presently is still no guarantee that the data the person provided would meet your category requirement. If they typed 2007 as the construction year it would pass the required test, but still wouldn't qualify. No matter what, you will still have to check over that variable in order to determine whether that church qualifies.

We understand that some categories still require certain data to be legitimately considered for that category, such as your Old Church example. But we think these types of variables are few and far between, and also do not have a problem with category groups enforcing these kinds of rules in their approval process.

Q10:

Please don't make Waymarking a competition as Geocaching is. Or at least let people stay out of the points if they want. And now I am writing, please give people the opportunity to hide their numbers in Geocaching.

<opinionate> skrev i en meddelelse news:23098@portal.groundspeak.com...

Points etc.

I already said you could opt out. As for geocaching that is a different website.

opinionate:

display a total points score on your profile (opt out available - just to get that out of the way).

<opinionate> skrev i en meddelelse news:23103@portal.groundspeak.com...

I already said you could opt out. As for geocaching that is a different website.

opinionate:

display a total points score on your profile (opt out available - just to get that out of the way).

Q10:

Sorry, but I'am not english/american, so it's not easy to get it all right from your writing. Expecially not when you are using abbreviations. But thanks! :-) 

What about the same "opt out available" in Geocaching? :-)

<opinionate> skrev i en meddelelse news:23103@portal.groundspeak.com...

I already said you could opt out. As for geocaching that is a different website.

opinionate:

display a total points score on your profile (opt out available - just to get that out of the way).

Sorry about that. It's actually not an abbreviation but neither is it very common I suppose.

I will repeat that this is not a geocaching website, so that discussion is for over there.

But while I have you, I am very curious of your reasons for not wanting the points score visible on your profile. Can you explain that to me? I'm not criticizing your preference but I am honestly interested in hearing why it doesn't appeal to you. Maybe if we know why some dislike it, we can find a way to please them too.

1) I would welcome some system for submitting corrections on waymarks.  I often see misspellings in titles, waymarks listed in the wrong states, or poor choices of default images.  I hate to e-mail people and ask them to correct.  Sometimes when I do, I never hear back, anyway.

I spend a lot of time on wikis, and sometimes with Waymarking, I miss that flexibility.  It's clear that a complete wiki-ization of Waymarking would be a disaster, but adding in some sort of review mechanism seems good.

2) I could give or take a points system, as long as it isn't presented as *the* "score".  One of the things I like about waymarking (and geocaching, for that matter) is that players can choose their own scoring system.  Maybe it's categories in which waymarks are posted, maybe it's categories in which waymarks are visited, maybe it's "You Are Here" signs posted, maybe it's number of countries waymarked in, etc. 

opinionate:

I know what I wrote here may seem a little daunting at first...

Sounds great, well thought out. Looking forward to seeing this implimented.

Now if only we could embed video into a waymark.

(yeah, I'm still on that kick)

Anyway, thanks for all the effort put into making this a fun way to kill time.

Omigosh!  This is fundamentally radical!

This needs some digestion time, but let me throw out a few initial reactions.

First, how real is the problem?  As I understand it, this change is in response to the assumption that we are losing waymarks because the current category structure is too daunting for a new person to figure out.  Are we, in fact, keeping people at bay?  I'm seeing more and more first-timers submitting waymarks.  The problem doesn't seem so much finding the right category, but in understanding category requirements and writing decent descriptions.  I'm just not sure the category issue is keeping people away.  Maybe, I just don't know.

Even if this is true, are there other things that could be done to make the category structure simpler and easier to use.  (The grid flowed over 900 today - how long will it take to hit triple digits)??  The issue of taxonomy and structure has been an ongoing issue from the begnning, but I think there is still a lot of room for improvement.  Just a small example - Static Aircraft Displays is under the Vehicles heading, but Landlocked Boats are not, yet Helipads are.  Anyway, I think this is an area that should be looked at again.  And, it is not only the actual structure, but how it is viewed.  I'm not sure what would work better, but trying to find something by locating the right group, subgroup, etc. is pretty much an excercise in futility.  The category search function seems to have problems as well.  An example - I got a waymark in the Vintage Gasoline Pump category, with a note that the cateogry did not come up on a search for "gas" when in fact it was one of the key words.  There's another thread on this.

Even if the Orphan Category is implemented, I think we'd do well to make it easier for people to find the right category.  We need a more coherent structure an a more intuitive interface to it.

And, I just wonder if we might create another problem by encouraging lazy waymarking.  Since I don't know what category something goes in, I'll just submit it and someone else will figure it out!  Not sure this would happen - just wondering.  Creating sub-standard waymarks could possibly become an issue, too.

The second part of the Orphan Waymark, if I understand it, is for waymarks for which there truly isn't a category.  This idea, of creating a catch-all category for otherwise unplacable waymarks, has come up for discussion before and always gets a pretty sound beating.  This is a bit different, because, as I understand it, orphan waymarks aren't real waymarks until they find a category home.  (Would they show up in personal stats)?  And, perhaps if the hypthetical premium member on the other side of the world couldn't find a home for it, a new category might get created for it.  That's a good thing.

Now, potentially, the downside of that could be that the Orphan Category folder could get overrun with waymarks that should never be waymarks that see the light of day in the first place.  What about some of the bad category ideas that have been voted down recently, or in the past?  What would keep someone from saying, "Now I have a place to submit all of those waymarks?"  Or, maybe someone wants to waymark stop signs or interesting cloud formations!  Would this be an anything-goes category?  If not, how would it be regulated?

Now, to the variable issue!  My first reaction is similar to BruceS - some categories really need to have required variables.  I think the simple solution to this, though, is that a category has required  *information.*   This is already the case, actually.  The category requirements can be written that x, y and z information or pieces of data be included - whether or not there is a variable for it.  So, in the case of This Old Church category, in terms of the system, the date would not be required.  But, if a waymark is submitted without the date, the reviewing officer could decline it.   Of course, this could really defeat the whole purpose of having all variables optional.  Let's say I can't find the hours of operation for a waymark, (pet peeve) so I leave it blank (instead of just leaving the default fields or, gulp, fabricating something just to get the waymark to go through).   The waymark could still be declined as a matter of policy by the officers.  So, how well this works, would really come down to how flexible people are in reviewing waymarks.  It sure puts more of a burden on reviewers, and it seems its hard enough now to get good officers actively reviewing waymarks.

Incentives!  Points?  And a complicated point system at that!  I guess I'm indifferent on that issue, but I can't really see this as much of an incentive.  Hey, would this be retroactive?  I've created a few categories and reviewed a few waymarks here and there.  But, racking up points isn't going to change it one way or the other for me.  And, I always worry when people start chasing points as it sometimes translates into a decrease in quality work.  Points for grid bingo?  Maybe points for each category,  or each state or country . . . and the grid shifts.    Okay, I'll admit that I'm working on getting my white ribbon, though.   Don't need points, but would like a way to see some of my personal stats on some of these action items!  It would be very interesting.

So, long post, long response.  Say, "Whew" if you got this far.

And, keep the waymarks coming!!

team farkle 7:

opinionate:

I know what I wrote here may seem a little daunting at first...

Now if only we could embed video into a waymark.

(yeah, I'm still on that kick)

Hey, keep beating the drum!  I think it is a great idea!  I can think of a lot of categories where a video in the gallery, at least, would be great.  The most we can do is provide an external link, but why could they be put in the gallery?

And, the favorite drum of many of us to beat, why can't we have a common photo pool for all of our photos so we don't have to upload them again each time we want to use them for a new waymark?  I think we are losing a lot of good waymarks because of this . . . . 

If the orphan waymarks could stay in the orphan queue, it would be a great way to save time and trouble for cross posting.

 I'm concerned that there might be abuse. Waymark titles come to mind. Some people like naming their waymarks quirky things. Some will use the state abbreviation, write out the state's name, use hyphens to seperate the city from the state or use commas. Does this mean any can change "Emire State Building - New York City, NY" to "Empire State Building, New York City, New York, USA"  Maybe instead of having changes go to the category officers , it could go to the owner.

I think I'd prefer it if the "Organizer" couldn't actually submit the waymark into a category for approval. I'd prefer it if the "Organizer" submitted it and it went back to the original poster for his approval BEFORE it was submitted for approval by category officers. Also I think the one that an "Organizer" tweaks and submits should be a copy. That way the original mark is still there for cross posting. This would provide a way to use the Orphan process to assist with cross posting. This will make tracking the points more complicated because the OP shouldn't get Organizer points.

globetrotters.us:

If the orphan waymarks could stay in the orphan queue, it would be a great way to save time and trouble for cross posting.

Why?

Once the orphan waymark has found a home, it's a waymark in a category just like any other. Any information from it that would be of use in cross-posting would be available in the unorphaned waymark. Wouldn't it?

My my my, such a discussion. First and foremost the most important item to address is that thankfully the original operation of Waymarking is being preserved.

I can see why people would be concerned about all of what has been proposed as the alternative way of participating. I'd like to take a shot at breaking it down.

Reviewing of submissions would remain consistent with our already established systems. If the content and variables do not meet the requirements, the listing should be denied. It matters not how it gets into the review area. Having all variables as optional changes nothing except that people will be able to submit listings without completing them. Again, if they are still intended as proof of validity, then deny the listing since that should be covered in "Instructions for Posting a {category name} Waymark:"

About the Points, have any of us in the Forums ever come across as if this is some kind of competition? We all likely know who has the big numbers, and yet after 4 years we are still helping each other and building together. Any number that may be assigned to us is no different than the number of posts we have in the Forums. In here I'm one of the big number people, so what? We didn't balk at the Ribbons, the Grid, the Footprint or any other stats/data and this should be no different. Play the game your way because it works that way. We all manage to rent movies, read books, choose restaurants, listen to music without being too concerned with how our peers do those things.

Categorizing 'Orphaned Waymarks' does seem rather Wiki-esque and that is just fine by me. My first question is "What if it can be cross-listed?" Which of course leads to "What if existing listings can be cross-listed but have not been?". I like the idea that people can submit them for assistance but I am skeptical that this is in our best interest. The original concept was that a person would submit things that they were knowledgeable about or held an interest in. When a location or item was found that they were unsure of, they would have to research the site to learn where it went and this is where the 'up to 10 tags' matter. This has been further improved with the new search engine. I know nothing about Scuba Diving but another local Waymarker does. He should be listing those locations, not me.

All in all, I am completely fine with what has been suggested by OpinioNate because for me nothing changes. If they feel this will be a benefit, then I'm all for it.

Now if GSP had a proposal on the table to get more interest in attracting people to actually try Waymarking and that in turn caused people to Visit my listings, that would be nice. Right now I am still baking cookies and looking out the window just hoping someone will 'call round'. Honestly, I've archived several Waymarks after three years and they were never Visited. What bugs me most is when I create a Waymark in 2006 and no one Visits it, but then someone drops a micro cache at the same spot in 2009 and it gets found 20 times in the first month, many times with logs like "Thanks for showing me this cool spot." And still, I get no Visits. Even if it was a Virtual, I'd get logs. I think it is time to let Waymark Visits count on Geocaching stats. The numbers don't count anyway, so why not let them be included?

Better yet, let all stats show on all three games. That's how to generate interest and build bigger databases, in my eyes.

BQ

team farkle 7:

opinionate:

I know what I wrote here may seem a little daunting at first...

Sounds great, well thought out. Looking forward to seeing this implimented.

--> Now if only we could embed video into a waymark. You can,  just upload it to  www.YouTube.com and paste the link to your Waymark page.  <---

(yeah, I'm still on that kick)Anyway, thanks for all the effort put into making this a fun way to kill time.

silverquill:

The issue of taxonomy and structure has been an ongoing issue from the begnning, but I think there is still a lot of room for improvement.  Just a small example - Static Aircraft Displays is under the Vehicles heading, but Landlocked Boats are not, yet Helipads are.  Anyway, I think this is an area that should be looked at again.

Thank you!  I have relocated Landlocked Boats into the Technology > Vehicles area.  If you or anyone else knows of others that are miscategorized please email them to me at checkmarkmail@gmail.com

 

Jake39:

You can,  just upload it to  www.YouTube.com and paste the link to your Waymark page.  <---

Yeah you can...

Here's the problem I have with that.

Any time a link makes the viewer leave your website you risk losing them, ie;

they click on your youtube video nad the next thing they're all over youtube checking other videos.

You want them to stay at your site. An embedded video gets played and they then continue browsing Waymarking

the blue quasar:

Now if GSP had a proposal on the table to get more interest in attracting people to actually try Waymarking and that in turn caused people to Visit my listings, that would be nice. Right now I am still baking cookies and looking out the window just hoping someone will 'call round'. Honestly, I've archived several Waymarks after three years and they were never Visited. What bugs me most is when I create a Waymark in 2006 and no one Visits it, but then someone drops a micro cache at the same spot in 2009 and it gets found 20 times in the first month, many times with logs like "Thanks for showing me this cool spot." And still, I get no Visits. Even if it was a Virtual, I'd get logs. I think it is time to let Waymark Visits count on Geocaching stats. The numbers don't count anyway, so why not let them be included?

Better yet, let all stats show on all three games. That's how to generate interest and build bigger databases, in my eyes. BQ

I've been posting more visits to other people's waymarks lately. Because they're there to log. And because I'm backlogged, and so didn't get around to posting before someone else created the waymark.

Also, more and more folks around here are discovering waymarking. At least one of them posts visits if he happens to visit while geocaching (it's a start!). I -suspect- some geocachers are at least LOOKING at waymarking, because for a little while I was noticing some geocache placements that seemed to be following my TxHM postings. So even if they didn't participate, perhaps they at least looked.

OTOH, I've noticed that some of the newer waymarkers around here will post a waymark of a site in a "new" category of one I'd already done in three other categories....and no visits to my three. I'll admit I'm behind in logging visits in this situation too, so hopefully that's the case.

Thanks for the great feedback. I can tell you all gave this a lot of thought over the weekend and I appreciate it.

I have a lot of diverse thoughts on your comments but it would take forever to quote each little bit. I'll just spew it all out here and you can pick out the one that's directed to you.

There was concern that the helper would change crucial information about the waymark when submitting to the group. To limit the possibility of this we have grayed out the title and coordinates for the person helping you categorize the waymark. They could change the description but if they went too far it would be obvious by looking at the waymark title.

Points will be retroactively awarded to you for every act of waymarking associated with your account since the beginning.

I'm sensing a lot of apprehension about the points, so I'll just say that if they become a total disaster we'll go ahead and pull the plug. It won't hurt anything by simply turning them off and removing all reference to them on the site.

Back to the required variable vs. required information topic. It's going to require somewhat of a culture shift to get used to the idea that it's OK to be missing some ancillary information about a waymark. I'll give you an example: In the Waterfall category is a "type" dropdown containing 10 different kinds of waterfalls for you to choose from. If you want to get to know any single waterfall waymark this information is essential. However, the waterfall itself stands on its own without this info, and can handle waiting a while before someone more knowledgeable identifies it. If the waterfall group officers are used to declining waymarks that are missing this information it will take some adjustment in their thinking before they are comfortable approving them. The key is to shift thinking to "variables shouldn't be a reason to deny a waymark". I will say again, however, if it is between chocolate waterfalls and water waterfalls, and someone submits a chocolate waterfall, that should still be declined. Variable or no variable.

I would love to have embedded video and photo pools to store your images. When we have time we'll make this happen.

I'm glad someone mentioned the orphan queue becoming cluttered with bad waymarks, because I forgot to mention that they will decay over time. If an orphan waymark hasn't been picked up after some as yet undetermined period of time, it will be archived.

I believe it was Silverquill who asked if we really need orphans. The truth is, we're only guessing. It is an informed guess, however, in that we have traffic statistics that could be interpreted to support this addition to the site. Especially when you compare geocaching traffic with waymarking traffic and it becomes evident that we lose many more visitors in proportion to the number who do participate. Visitors view less pages per visit to waymarking.com as well.

I heard some fears about the score taking over your profile page. This isn't true. We'll probably have a fairly subtle number displayed somewhere near the ribbons currently on the profile. You shouldn't see references to the points everywhere else on the site.

If an orphan can be cross-listed, the person who helps categorize will have to pick which category they feel it would be suited to best. If someone wants to create a new waymark for the other category(ies) they can do that.

More visits... yes I'm hoping by awarding points for visits it will encourage at least the number builders to visit more. I agree that participation would increase if stats were shared across both sites. This has historically been a big no-no in management's eyes, but it hasn't been discussed in some time. I know I wouldn't mind it. We wanted waymarking to stand on its own and it is afterall a fairly different game. Now that waymarking has its own identity and community there may not be as much opposition to the idea as before. We'll see...

Thanks again for the feedback. Please continue mulling it over and let me know your thoughts.

opinionate:

If an orphan can be cross-listed, the person who helps categorize will have to pick which category they feel it would be suited to best. If someone wants to create a new waymark for the other category(ies) they can do that.

More visits... yes I'm hoping by awarding points for visits it will encourage at least the number builders to visit more. I agree that participation would increase if stats were shared across both sites. This has historically been a big no-no in management's eyes, but it hasn't been discussed in some time. I know I wouldn't mind it. We wanted waymarking to stand on its own and it is afterall a fairly different game. Now that waymarking has its own identity and community there may not be as much opposition to the idea as before. We'll see...

So any particular orphan can only be assigned to a single category?

Perhaps you could do the multiple numbers banner off the coord.info website.  Like put http://coord.info/0ccam and get my stats.  All my numbers across all the Groundspeak sites.

Just a thought.

opinionate:

There was concern that the helper would change crucial information about the waymark when submitting to the group. To limit the possibility of this we have grayed out the title and coordinates for the person helping you categorize the waymark. They could change the description but if they went too far it would be obvious by looking at the waymark title.

Except that often one of the things that needs to be edited is the waymark title - misspellings or omitted info, or lack of required format.  But, maybe that's a necessary precaution and that should be left up to the category officers once it is submitted.  At least I'm assuming that the waymarks would go through a regular officer review, and the the categorizer is just redirecting it from the Orphan folder to an actual category.

opinionate:

I'm sensing a lot of apprehension about the points, so I'll just say that if they become a total disaster we'll go ahead and pull the plug. It won't hurt anything by simply turning them off and removing all reference to them on the site.

Not apprehension as much as indifference.  Already the numbers are skewed just because of the way people play the game.  Visits is the most obvious - some visit all of their own waymarks and some visit none, so comparison of those stats means nothing.  So, now there would be an incentive, if points are an incentive, for people to log visits to their own waymarks, I guess.

The only two point items I would comment on is, first, the visit waymark.  I think 5 would be a better value than ten.   And, what about visits that are deleted by the waymark owner?  I love reading visit logs, but other than that, I let them go and don't try to police them.  Now, if people are going to be earning points, then I might have to spend more time doing that - not what I want to do.

The other is "grid bingo."  It is quite a feat, to be sure, but I think 1000 points is a lot.  And, I think this is such a random thing just depending on what position categories have on the grid.  At least you will need a definition of "bingo."  For some it is one horizontal row.  For others, there are diagonal and vertical "bingos."  I think they mean by this twenty in a row in any direction.  Some work on clusters.

I would rather see, or see in addition, points awarded for each category one posts a waymark in (or visits, if we're doing visits).  I think that would be reward for paticipating in a wide range of categories, which is a good thing.  One more thing on top of the already cool icons!

Maybe points based on location - points for each state or country.  Could be difficult internationally, as not all countries are regionalized in the system, for whatever reason.

opinionate:

Back to the required variable vs. required information topic.
The key is to shift thinking to "variables shouldn't be a reason to deny a waymark".

Mmmm.  Not sure I can make that shift!  I think one of the goals of category design is to have meaningful variables, or I should say, meaningful required information which is sometimes configured to be put into variables.  So, while I'm not opposed to making variables optional (i.e. having the system accept waymark submissions regardless of variables), I think it is still the category officers' preogative to decline waymarks which do not have required information, whether it is something mandatory in the description or in a variable. 

Actually, does this option of having all variables be optional have to be implemented for ALL categories, or could it just be for the Orphan category?

opinionate:

I would love to have embedded video and photo pools to store your images. When we have time we'll make this happen.

Yeah!  I think this would be so cool!  How about  .ppt files?

opinionate:

I'm glad someone mentioned the orphan queue becoming cluttered with bad waymarks, because I forgot to mention that they will decay over time. If an orphan waymark hasn't been picked up after some as yet undetermined period of time, it will be archived.

So, this is not intended to be a category for random waymarks, but for ones that should have a home somewhere?  I'm still having a hard time thinking that someone could figure out, and take the time to submit a waymark, but couldn't or wouldn't make the effort to determine the right category for it. 

It is not just a place for homeless toys to go on an island someplace, hoping to be rescued, or living in Neverneverland?  More like a slush pile?  I guess I'm still having a hard time grasping how this would actually be used.

Some questions:

Would there be any review of waymarks submitted as orphans, or would they be on automatic approval?

How would people know that there is such a place to submit waymarks and how would it be explained?

Would potential "categorizers" sign on as members or officers?  Or would anyone (Premium Member) be able to browse through the orphans and move them out?

Similarly, would there be any way of receiving notices when new Orphans are submitted, or would it be up to "categorizers" to visit and browse?

Well, it would be an interesting move, that's for sure!
My parting jab, though, is, "When we will be able to submit photos and use them for multiple waymarks?" 

silverquill:

opinionate:

There was concern that the helper would change crucial information about the waymark when submitting to the group. To limit the possibility of this we have grayed out the title and coordinates for the person helping you categorize the waymark. They could change the description but if they went too far it would be obvious by looking at the waymark title.

Except that often one of the things that needs to be edited is the waymark title - misspellings or omitted info, or lack of required format.  But, maybe that's a necessary precaution and that should be left up to the category officers once it is submitted.  At least I'm assuming that the waymarks would go through a regular officer review, and the the categorizer is just redirecting it from the Orphan folder to an actual category.

Yea, officers will still have that capability to correct small errors and I hope they'd exercise the ability as usual. From their point of view it would be like any other category review.

silverquill:

opinionate:

I'm sensing a lot of apprehension about the points, so I'll just say that if they become a total disaster we'll go ahead and pull the plug. It won't hurt anything by simply turning them off and removing all reference to them on the site.

Not apprehension as much as indifference.  Already the numbers are skewed just because of the way people play the game.  Visits is the most obvious - some visit all of their own waymarks and some visit none, so comparison of those stats means nothing.  So, now there would be an incentive, if points are an incentive, for people to log visits to their own waymarks, I guess.

Well owner visits (that is, visits to your own waymark) are counted separately from true visits. At the moment we plan to award 1 point versus 10 points but that is subject to change. As you mentioned below 10 points might be excessive. 

silverquill:

The only two point items I would comment on is, first, the visit waymark.  I think 5 would be a better value than ten.   And, what about visits that are deleted by the waymark owner?  I love reading visit logs, but other than that, I let them go and don't try to police them.  Now, if people are going to be earning points, then I might have to spend more time doing that - not what I want to do.

Do visit deletions happen very often? I honestly hadn't given it much thought. I'm not sure how Sean handles that. Do you think waymark owners should still have the ability to delete them at all? They are working on a "report abuse" system on geocaching right now and it might be some code that we could borrow. I have wanted for a long time to have a "report this or that" system that would automatically archive content after so many reports.

silverquill:

The other is "grid bingo."  It is quite a feat, to be sure, but I think 1000 points is a lot.  And, I think this is such a random thing just depending on what position categories have on the grid.  At least you will need a definition of "bingo."  For some it is one horizontal row.  For others, there are diagonal and vertical "bingos."  I think they mean by this twenty in a row in any direction.  Some work on clusters.

A thousand points was picked by us because it represented double the points you would get from the waymarks alone (25pts x 20wmks = 500 pts for a row). To me it's a pretty impressive feat that gets progressively more difficult to accomplish, so I feel like 1000 points may even be conservative. What does everyone else think?

silverquill:

I would rather see, or see in addition, points awarded for each category one posts a waymark in (or visits, if we're doing visits).  I think that would be reward for paticipating in a wide range of categories, which is a good thing.  One more thing on top of the already cool icons!

I like this idea a lot. I'll have to speak with Sean and find out how difficult it would be to detect this.

silverquill:

Maybe points based on location - points for each state or country.  Could be difficult internationally, as not all countries are regionalized in the system, for whatever reason.

You point out the difficulty with this. Making it global would be a nightmare.

silverquill:

opinionate:

Back to the required variable vs. required information topic.
The key is to shift thinking to "variables shouldn't be a reason to deny a waymark".

Mmmm.  Not sure I can make that shift!  I think one of the goals of category design is to have meaningful variables, or I should say, meaningful required information which is sometimes configured to be put into variables.  So, while I'm not opposed to making variables optional (i.e. having the system accept waymark submissions regardless of variables), I think it is still the category officers' prerogative to decline waymarks which do not have required information, whether it is something mandatory in the description or in a variable. 

I still agree a waymark has certain requirements that should not be overlooked. I guess I just picture each basic waymark evolving over time into the best waymark possible. Sort of removing the need to be perfected at the time of submission and giving the rest of the community a goal each time they visit.

silverquill:

Actually, does this option of having all variables be optional have to be implemented for ALL categories, or could it just be for the Orphan category?

If we're going to have all categories open to accepting orphans at one time or another, they all have to be ready to accept a waymark without the variables filled in.

silverquill:

opinionate:

I would love to have embedded video and photo pools to store your images. When we have time we'll make this happen.

Yeah!  I think this would be so cool!  How about  .ppt files?

As long as we're dreaming, why not?

silverquill:

opinionate:

I'm glad someone mentioned the orphan queue becoming cluttered with bad waymarks, because I forgot to mention that they will decay over time. If an orphan waymark hasn't been picked up after some as yet undetermined period of time, it will be archived.

So, this is not intended to be a category for random waymarks, but for ones that should have a home somewhere?  I'm still having a hard time thinking that someone could figure out, and take the time to submit a waymark, but couldn't or wouldn't make the effort to determine the right category for it. 

It is not just a place for homeless toys to go on an island someplace, hoping to be rescued, or living in Neverneverland?  More like a slush pile?  I guess I'm still having a hard time grasping how this would actually be used.

There will be "submit a waymark" links in all the usual places, plus a new one on the home page. When you go to submit a waymark the entry page will be slightly changed to have a category selection control at the top. It will be a dropdown like the one you use when creating a new category - select each parent category in turn and drill down until you find the one you want. When you finally select a category at a level that accepts waymarks it will pre-populate the category instructions and variables. If at this point a person can't find a good category, they can leave it blank and the waymark will become an orphan.

silverquill:

Some questions:

Would there be any review of waymarks submitted as orphans, or would they be on automatic approval?

Automatic.

silverquill:

How would people know that there is such a place to submit waymarks and how would it be explained?

Like I said just above, everyone will use the same link to submit a regular waymark and an orphan waymark.

silverquill:

Would potential "categorizers" sign on as members or officers?  Or would anyone (Premium Member) be able to browse through the orphans and move them out?

Categorizing will be a Premium Member feature. We need basic level of trust to give someone that ability.

silverquill:

Similarly, would there be any way of receiving notices when new Orphans are submitted, or would it be up to "categorizers" to visit and browse?

I'm thinking an RSS feed would work. Maybe a "latest orphans" control on the home page and Waymarks tab.

silverquill:

Well, it would be an interesting move, that's for sure!
My parting jab, though, is, "When we will be able to submit photos and use them for multiple waymarks?" 

Soon?